Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore (C) speaks at a news conference with New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (L), Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell (R) and other U.S. State Attorney's General to announce a state-based effort to combat climate change in the Manhattan borough of New York City, March 29, 2016. REUTERS/Mike Segar

An Inconvenient 10 Years: Al Gore Gets More Alarmist While The Science Doesn’t

It’s been 10 years since Al Gore released his film “An Inconvenient Truth” that reinvigorated the eco-left and brought the issue of global warming to American homes.

Unfortunately for Gore, as the years go by not only are many of his film’s predictions wrong, but Gore’s own view of man-made warming becomes more alarmist while the science suggests otherwise.

“Sorry to risk sounding grandiose, but the future of human civilization is at stake,” Gore said in an exclusive interview with WIRED on the 10th anniversary of his Oscar-winning film.

“Winning means avoiding catastrophic consequences that could utterly disrupt the future of human civilization,” Gore said of what needs to be done to fight global warming. “It means bending the curves downward so that the global warming pollution stops accumulating in the atmosphere and begins to reduce in volume.”

For Gore, fighting global warming means completely reorganizing society so we virtually create no emissions when generating electricity, traveling or even turning on our appliances.

“It means creating tens of millions of new jobs to retrofit buildings, to transform energy systems and install advanced batteries, to transform agriculture and forestry, and to make the solutions to the climate crisis the central organizing principle of our civilization,” Gore said.

But Gore’s solution to global warming is base on a catastrophic outlook that human greenhouse gas emissions will drastically increase temperatures and cause an ecological catastrophe. Does climate science support this view?

For starters, Gore’s 2006 film came out smack dab in the middle of the so-called global warming “hiatus” — a period of about 15 years with no significant warming. Gore promised global warming was “uninterrupted and intensifying.” That’s not exactly what happened.

The hiatus, or “slow down” as some have called it, in warming has forced scientists to go back and rethink the climate models they used to predict ever-rising global temperatures.

Fyfe’s blog post comes after years of intense debate among climate scientists over the accuracy of climate models and over how much global warming people can expect in the future.

Cato Institute climate scientists Patrick Michaels and Chip Knappenberger have been at the forefront of arguing global warming was at the low-end of climate model predictions, and that future warming won’t be as bad as alarmists like Gore suggest.

“The bulk atmospheric temperature is where the signal is the largest,” Christy said in the hearing, referring to the greenhouse gas effect. “We have measurements for that — it doesn’t match up with the models.”

“Because this result challenges the current theory of greenhouse warming in relatively straightforward fashion, there have been several well-funded attacks on those of us who build and use such datasets and on the datasets themselves,” Christy said.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].